21–30 of 513 posts
3 years after going EOL, and 14 years after the release of Python 3. Good riddance at long last.
I see the sort of perspective pervasively, but I don’t really understand it. I would guess that most people wouldn’t consider expunging c89 from gcc to be progress, yet this is almost universally the attitude towards python2. What am I missing?
print "goodbye, sweet prince" I've been slowly porting a lot of my legacy code from 2 to 3 on an as-needed basis, there's a few bits though that are just too huge/crusty/etc that they will never get ported.
print("goodbye, sweet prince")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is the package manager to use? pip
My team is using Poetry. Did you know pip can execute arbitrary code when installing packages?
What lesson was learned? It seems like a weird corollary of the Streisand Effect: if you announce something's EOL, you'll get more clingy users that keep the product out of the grave, creating a drag on maintenance budgets, but, maybe, if you just stop maintaining and walk away, dependent users will either notice and switch away, or die themselves, and the death will ultimately be quicker and quieter.
(1) As an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26168596
And not a decade too soon. The Python 2 -> Python 3 migration will be studied for a long time as an example how not to release a new version of your language or library, right next to that Angular thingy. The number of headaches I've had to deal with because of this over the years have just about soured me on the whole Python offering, and I used to be a pretty big fan. Great that Debian finally pulls the plug on it,…
Yes, it is nice to see the python 3 migration is pretty much done, it really could have happened literally a decade ago! While we're all here: which is the package manager to use?
If you're writing Python code, `poetry` has been the least bad package manager in my experience. It has a lock-file, so it should help avoid supply-side attacks (like the PyTorch one from a few days ago [1]), and it means your local environment and CI/CD environment should have the same packages installed.
I'd also recommend setting the [`virtualenvs.in-project`][2] setting to `true`, to store the `.venv` in the same folder as your code, so that when you delete your code, all of the downloaded packages get deleted too. Otherwise they'll just stick around in your user directory and use up a lot of disk space.
[1]: https://pytorch.org/blog/compromised-nightly-dependency/
[2]: https://python-poetry.org/docs/configuration/#virtualenvsin-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is nice to see the python 3 migration is pretty much done, it really could have happened literally a decade ago! While we're all here: which is the package manager to use?
I've sort of bypassed the whole package manager thingy by using 'Anaconda', it's served me very well so far by insulating me from those particular gotchas. https://www.anaconda.com/ Some would consider it cheating but I haven't got enough hours in the day. If I were to write some ad copy for Anaconda it would be 'in several years of frequent use this particular user didn't have to resolve a single conflict, it all ju…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is nice to see the python 3 migration is pretty much done, it really could have happened literally a decade ago! While we're all here: which is the package manager to use?
I've sort of bypassed the whole package manager thingy by using 'Anaconda', it's served me very well so far by insulating me from those particular gotchas. https://www.anaconda.com/ Some would consider it cheating but I haven't got enough hours in the day. If I were to write some ad copy for Anaconda it would be 'in several years of frequent use this particular user didn't have to resolve a single conflict, it all ju…
print "goodbye, sweet prince" I've been slowly porting a lot of my legacy code from 2 to 3 on an as-needed basis, there's a few bits though that are just too huge/crusty/etc that they will never get ported.
Doesn't this say something about the language if it's been so difficult for people to migrate from 2 to 3? Yes, it was a major version change, but it doesn't bode well for arguments that Python is a good language to do long-term, maintainable, and large-scale development. Sure, now things are "settled" with 3, but Python continues to get more features. It just doesn't look good for the language if even doing a langua…
But it would be a mistake to consider Python anything but luxury glue no matter how much you've used it for production code, it isn't and never will be a bullet proof language, there are just too many ways in which the runtime can surprise you and the long term maintainability of any Python codebase is always going to be questionable, in part because you will most likely have dependencies on stuff that will silently disappear or change out from under you while you're not watching.
I've been writing Python code pretty much since it was first released and there isn't a single piece of code that I ever put together that worked longer than a few years out of the box without some breaking change. This as opposed to just about every other language that I've used, which I find very frustrating because Python could be just about perfect. And I'm still sore about significant whitespace ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the sort of perspective pervasively, but I don’t really understand it. I would guess that most people wouldn’t consider expunging c89 from gcc to be progress, yet this is almost universally the attitude towards python2. What am I missing?
python2 code was not necessarily forwards compatible with python3. 3 was explicitly attempting to correct some regrettable choices in python2 and wasn't syntax compatible as a result. The effort for implementation and package maintainers to support both versions was considerable, resulting in some notable packages only supporting one or the other. In the words of the Python maintainers: We needed to sunset Python 2 s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the sort of perspective pervasively, but I don’t really understand it. I would guess that most people wouldn’t consider expunging c89 from gcc to be progress, yet this is almost universally the attitude towards python2. What am I missing?
Survivorship bias. Teams whose projects were seriously derailed are more likely to have stopped using and relying on Python.